On 5/29/2010 6:58 AM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen skrev:
Joaquin M Lopez Munoz skrev:
Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto <at> cs.aau.dk> writes:
Would you like to do the addition yourself and commit the changes to the trunk? I'm quite busy these days to do it myself.
Yes, no problem.
I'll post the code here before comitting.
Attached is a patch. [...] Let me know if it is good enough to be committed.
regards
-Thorsten
At the risk of intrusively butting in, I couldn't help but notice that Joaquin's specification of make_obj_guard_if was described as (from 2010/05/29 3:41 AM PDT): "I'd prefer to leave make_obj_guard like it is and add an additional make_obj_guard_if<...> (note the _if) for your use case, which creates a null_guard if the condition is not true." However, it appears Thorsten's implementation creates a null_guard if the condition *is* true (the boolean is named "is_null", after all). I'd consider Joaquin's semantics to be less confusing. Also, since I'm here, perhaps you should have a make_obj_guard_if_c taking the boolean template parameter, while make_obj_guard_if takes a Boost.MPL boolean constant class. This is the convention used by Boost.EnableIf and Boost.MPL (among other Boost libraries), right? - Jeff